September 11, 2007

Public Opinion And Public Pressure

by DemFromCT

Not the same thing, of course. Now that AP- Ipsos
has weighed in, along with CNN, USA/Gallup, WaPo, and Ny Times/CBS,
it's helpful to look at the trends and analysis Prof. Charles Franklin
has pulled to gather at pollster.com and his home at Political Arithmetik. Franklin helps explain (at least in part) the cognitive dissonance seen in today's headlines. For example, there's

AP Poll: Most See Iraq War As Failure
The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop
buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos
poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress
and voters for more time.

The pessimism expressed by most people — including significant
minorities of Republicans — contrasted with the brighter picture
offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq told
Congress on Monday that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved
their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he
conceded there has been scant political progress.

By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history
will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success.
Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10
Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed — ominous
numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address
later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for
a withdrawal.

Rather than picking apart the individual polls, take a look at these trends (click for bigger pic) Prof. Franklin has put together.

Franklin astutely notes:

Bottom line: Frustrated anti-war forces are understandably angry
that the 2006 election victory and subsequent Democratic Congress has
failed to bring change to Iraq policy. The trend lines above show how
support for the war has declined dramatically since 2003. Anti-war
forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical
of various aspects of the war.

But change in Congress also requires that Republican members
perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is
time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not
been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the
current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans
can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the
certainty of electoral catastrophe. This isn't to say Republicans don't
wish the issue would go away, or that they relish running in 2008 with
nearly 6 years of inconclusive war on their watch. But opponents of the
war will not prevail in Congress unless a more massive opposition
emerges--- and one united on the specific details of how to end the
war.

Franklin notes that there are three groups here, those who want to
stay the course, those who want out asap and everyone else, roughly in
thirds (something we have noted here as well). However, Franklin points
out out that rejection of Bush (blue line) is greater than accepting
the war as a mistake (purple line). This is why Bush needs Petraeus to
be the front man (and why we need to be clear that this is the
unpopular Bush's unpopular war). What the cautious Prof. Franklin
doesn't note is that 'rapid withdrawal' is not the same as "deliberate
withdrawal" or "responsible withdrawal" or withdrawal with honor" or
whatever the heck you want to call it. The 'swing vote', if you want to
put it that way favors withdrawal and is just as fed up as the rest of
us about how things are going both in Iraq and in the country as a whole.

What will happen is that the GOP and their shills will push the line
that 'the President got what he want'. That's all smoke and mirrors.
The conflicting independent reports preceding yesterday led to a rather
lackluster set of media reports about the Petraeus hearing. GOP
congresspeople have to be disappointed their cover is as thin as it is
in preparation for Mr. Clinch-The-Deal's Presidential address. Bush
runs the risk now of driving away any waverers in his next inarticulate
defense of "stay the course" (see graph - he is wildly mistrusted on
Iraq).

The public opinion trends are not going to be reversed (see Matthew Dowd):

In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the
status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most
Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue
-- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process
of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American
troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan
which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.

Comments

If Petraeus is a competent commander, he already has well-developed plans for "rapid withdrawal" and every other variety of our inevitable departure from a country where we have worn out our welcome. He works for us, and all he needs is a new set of orders.

If Congress has to tie Cheney's and Bush's hands to put this country back on the right course (consult your constituents--see graph above), it has the power.

Just Spackling -- It appears that Petraeus does not have contigency plans for a rapid withdrawal, which is why Admiral Fallon sent another officer to Baghdad to collect information and prepare such a plan (see the WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801846_pf.html).

I agree that a competent commander should have contigency plans for all eventualities, but Petraeus evidently does not. This suggests to me that he is not a competent commander. It remains to be seen if he is a competent PR flack for the WH.